More Catholic than … Catholic Answers (a play on the more common idiom, “More Catholic than the Pope.”)

  • Thread starter Thread starter TOmNossor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TOmNossor

Guest
More Catholic than … Catholic Answers

The title of this thread is intentionally jarring (to get noticed) and plays upon the more common idiom, “More Catholic than the Pope.”

I am going to offer some of my background. Do not misconstrue this as an attempt to appear a sheep though I am a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I do not claim to be a sheep, claim to appear a sheep, or … I am an ex-Catholic that finds many reasons to be an ex-Catholic.
That being said, I intend to be as informed about what Catholicism REALLY is and I think it impossible to learn this without (name removed by moderator)ut from folks who embrace Catholicism. If Catholicism is God’s church on earth, one is radically unlikely to discover this through the teachings of those who reject Catholicism.
My history:
I grew up in a very liberal parish with a wonderful priest. Through a combination of this liberality and my own pride/arrogance I missed the “specialness” that was the Catholic Church. After attending mass most of the time through college, I just began to explore various Protestant churches and ultimately left. When I realized that Catholicism was much more than I thought it was, I thought it might be possible that I was being called to return to my Catholic faith.
A man who attended an SSPX mass was very clear that I needed to return to Catholicism. As I explored Catholicism I concluded that there were many different views of Catholicism. My SSPX friend became a Sedavacantist during JPII’s pontificate (I do not think JPII had much to do with this, just more study and …). I found other SSPX friends. I found Catholic Answers (Radio, Website, and Message Board). And I recognized that the parish of my youth embraced Vatican II in a way that Catholic Answers, SSPX folks, and Sedavacantists ALL say is inappropriate. During this time, I concluded that the strongest Catholicism was taught be Catholic Answers. Vatican II was a council like those before it, and it was NOT a break with Catholic past. Breaks with the past were not Catholicism, but the “private judgment” of those who rejected Vatican II and/or the Pope were also problematic.
Cont…
 
Last edited:
Today:
I am questioning what is the strongest Catholicism. Karl Keating was very clear that the Pope should answer the “Dubia Cardinals.” A couple of years ago on Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin (I think) spoke unusually about the question before the synod concerning the divorced and remarried receiving communion. It was clear to me that the Catholic Answer Catholicism was SOLIDLY on the side that there is no “pastoral judgment” that make adultery acceptable. Catholic Answers Catholicism solidly rejects the path taken by the Archdiocese of Malta (and presumably celebrated by the Pope). It is my opinion that Tim Staples (last year some time) didn’t adequately align what he said with what I Catholic Answers taught me to believe was Catholicism.
I currently believe that during the Pontificate of Pope Francis, the Catholic Answers version of Catholicism is weaker than it was during the Pontificate of JPII. If Pope Francis knows Catholicism, Catholic Answers does not. My childhood priest is a fan of Pope Francis (and also is critical of Catholic Answers). I doubt that the strengthening of the Sedavacantist and Liberal positions make them stronger than what I saw when JPII (and Benedict) was Pope, but they are stronger than they were before because the Pope is not concerned with Historic Christianity like Catholic Answers taught me he should be.
My question and comments here should be viewed as, “What is the strongest Catholic position I can weigh as a non-Catholic?”
I think it VERY likely that if I concluded that the Pope was the Vicar of Christ when JPII was the Pope and I learned Catholicism from Catholic Answers, I would feel some stress associated with Pope Francis; but I would not view this as a reason to cease to be Catholic. I believe all Christians (theists, seekers) must exercise some form of “Private Judgment” when determining which and if they will align themselves with some form of organized religion. Having made that decisions, I think the teachings and leaders of that organized religion should receive some deference (“PRIVATE JUDGEMENT” should cease, but private judgment never will). I would not encourage those who know Catholicism is God’s church to reject this view just because Pope Francis has done things I don’t see as aligning with Catholic Answers Catholicism (or some Catholic might not see as aligning with what they thought Catholicism was). For me personally there are unexpected things that could jar me out of religious commitments I have made, but there is not enough clarity at this point concerning Pope Francis and his teachings that I think this would happen for me.
Charity, TOm
 
Perhaps my post was too long.
Does the Catholicism of Catholic Answers as taught during the Pontificate of JPII (and Benidict XVI) align with the Catholicism as taught by the words and actions of Pope Francis? If so, how can this be?
If not, what is “true” Catholicism and what should a non-Catholic do to learn it?
Charity, TOm
 
I am lost, what you said made no sense.

You seem to be under the impression that Catholic Answers is the official teacher of the Faith?

The teacher of the faith is the Church Herself and Her Infallible documents… if you want to learn about Catholicism, no disrespect, but forget Jimmy Akin - how about the Catechism?

Forget Tim Staples - how about the Bible?

Forget the SSPX - read the documents of Vatican II.

If you read the Catechism, the Bible, and the documents of Vatican II (a lot of reading, but possible to do in a few years pretty easily), you will learn infinitely more what Catholicism is than if you spent the same amount of time reading Catholic Answers.

Plus if you read these three volumes, you’d learn from our highest written authority, Sacred Scripture, our other fount of Apostolic Teaching, Sacred Tradition which is embodied in the Catechism, and finally the documents of Vatican II - the Churches official teachings regarding Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in todays world and the Catholic Truth from the highest Magisterial level.
 
Last edited:
There is only one Catholicism.
Yes, we are the same Catholics.

There was really bad formation in the aftermath of Vat II. This had almost nothing really to do with what VII actually said, but with expectations and rumors of the 60s, things like “they’ll get rid of priestly celibacy soon” and other such things, teachers would not like if seminary students would practice devotions or pray the Rosary, it was crazy.
It got really bad, even though VII didn’t say anything to these effects, like, at all.
But, now some groups don’t like VII, partly because of what it actually did, but probably much more likely because of what these rumors and poor teaching and formation did.
“Fake news” is not a new thing. Nowadays there’s all sorts of fake news about the pope.
He’s Catholic just like the other popes.
Catholic Answers agrees, because as Catholics we believe in One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism.
 
Spyridon said:
I am lost, what you said made no sense.
You seem to be under the impression that Catholic Answers is the official …
If you read the Catechism, the Bible, and the documents of Vatican II
Click to expand...
Spyridon,

Thank you for your response. I am surprised that what I said “made no sense.”

No, I am not under the impression that Catholic Answers is part of the Magisterium. I know Catholic Answers is a San Diego area apostolate that is “one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization.” As I said in my opening post, I came to believe that what Catholic Answer taught was the most compelling way to view Catholicism. Clearly they attempted to be faithful to the Magisterium and they deal with the issues Protestants have long hurled at Catholicism. Occasionally they deal with issues from SSPX folks or “liberal Catholics.”

Concerning the CCC. I have read 20% or so of the CCC and probably 20% of the Baltimore Catechism. I reference the CCC when I want to know the Catholic position on something. But I have read 3 books trying to better understand Catholic beliefs highlighted in a single paragraph of the CCC. Books by Cardinal Schonborn (an author of the CCC), Matthew Joseph Scheeben (brilliant theologian), and Dr. Daniel A. Keating (not established like Scheeben yet, but …). My point is that the CCC is a reference work that is a starting point. I do not think it will answer my question for me, but I agree it is important.

Concerning the Bible, I have read it. Most of it multiple times. I will teach the Old Testament in 2018 and the New Testament in 2019. I do not and will not consider my class a Protestant Bible study, but Patrick Madrid has claimed that Protestant Bible studies are “four lane superhighways out of the Catholic Church.” I think the Catholic Church aligns reasonably well with the Bible, but I think a lot of non-Catholic Christian faiths align reasonably well with the Bible. I do not think the Bible will answer my questions, but I believe it is important.

I have this book and have read parts of it:


I find this to be the LEAST helpful and I will tell you why. Vatican II standing alone removed from historic Christianity, Vatican II as the Ecumenical Council standing apart from the 20 ECs that preceded it is POTENTIALLY one of the problems in Catholicism today. I do not think it unfair to say that Vatican II was less explicit in its positions than Trent or many of the previous ECs. Without a fully Catholic hermeneutic Vatican II has been IMO misread by many. Of course maybe the hermeneutic of Cardinal Cupich is fully Catholic or maybe of Cardinal Burke? That is my point anyway.

So, I do not expect to walk away from this thread with “the Catholic Answer,” but I am looking for (name removed by moderator)ut. I think your reading list is good and I will continue to read from it.

Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I do think these are tough times. You can recommend reading to me too if it is easier.
Charity, TOm
 
Kei said:
There is only one Catholicism.
Yes, we are the same Catholics.

There was really bad formation in the aftermath of Vat II. This had almost nothing really to do with what VII actually said, but with expectations and rumors of the 60s, things like “they’ll get rid of priestly celibacy soon” and other such things, teachers would not like if seminary students would practice devotions or pray the Rosary, it was crazy.
It got really bad, even though VII didn’t say anything to these effects, like, at all.
But, now some groups don’t like VII, partly because of what it actually did, but probably much more likely because of what these rumors and poor teaching and formation did.
“Fake news” is not a new thing. Nowadays there’s all sorts of fake news about the pope.
He’s Catholic just like the other popes.
Catholic Answers agrees, because as Catholics we believe in One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism.
Click to expand...
I agree with all but your “Fake News” paragraph and I agree in part with that too.
Liberal media is only too happy to claim things about Pope Francis that I think he would reject.
That being said, Karl Keating is not “liberal media.”
Father Thomas Weinandy is not “liberal media.” I read and respected Father Weinandy (and references him on this board) long before Pope Francis was Pope.
There is something there. This is not JUST “fake news.”
Charity, TOm
 
(name removed by moderator),

Thank you very much. I hope to restate your position to your satisfaction (because that is what Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Weinandy would do). After that I have things I want to poke on, but I am sure I can do so without “insulting in nearly every comment”
As I understand your posts there are a few things necessary to rightly assess what has been done by Pope Francis and how it relates to the unchanging teachings of the Catholic Church.
  1. The deposit of faith or “divine law” does not change. I suspect you would acknowledge the “Development” thesis of Cardinal Newman, but this is not what is at issue here anyway. Something that is part of the “deposit of faith” would be that the Priest stands “in persona Christi” and this means that they are male.
  2. Ecclesiastical law or the practices of the faith can change. The example you used was the age of bishops. You alluded to “priestly celibacy,” which I usually reference as something that could change (and Eastern Rite Catholic priests can be married and this could change for Roman Rite Catholics too).
  3. Pope Francis has not declared that adultery is not a sin. This is “divine law” and cannot change.
  4. Pope Francis has not declared that an earlier marriage that has not been and/or cannot be annulled is any less binding that it has always been.
  5. Because of #3 and #4, individuals who have sex with someone other than those who they were originally married to (#4) are committing adultery (#3). It does not matter if they have civilly remarried, they are committing adultery.
  6. Pope Francis has not declared that those in mortal sin can now partake of the Eucharist.
  7. Mortal sin requires three things:
    A. Grave matter – adultery is grave matter and this has not changed.
    B. One must KNOW the act is a sin and is grave matter. *
    C. One must give full consent to the sin knowing it is grave matter. This means they must choose the sin freely knowing it is sinful and grave matter.
  8. Pope Francis has not changed anything in #7.
  9. The “ecclesiastical practice” of the church previously was to deny communion to the divorced and remarried (if they were living as husband and wife ie having sex). This practice can be traced to 5, 6, and 7, but …
  10. Due to many factors it is possible that one may have entered into a second marriage (#5) without knowing this act was grave matter thus not satisfying 7b.
  11. In addition to the obviously true #10, upon learning that one is committing adultery (#5) for a variety of reasons one may not be free (7c) to cease marital relations and cease committing adultery.
  12. If 7c or 7b are not met there is no Mortal sin and thus no impact upon communion.
  13. Because of #12 Pope Francis has changed the “ecclesiastical practice” mentioned in #9, but has not changed anything concerning 1-8 and 10-12. Since #9 is a practice, it can change.
*Do you know if one is in grave sin if they freely choose to sin, but they do not recognize that their sin is grave matter. I know I should not do xyz, but I want too. Xyz is gossip or Xyz is to use artificial contraception in a valid marriage.
Do I understand?
Thank you again for your response.
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top